I've said Hoek broke his promise, and it was bad.  But compared to what and in what context?  Resign?  Not support him on policy issues I agree with him on?  The fact is on Term Limits, Hoek's promise is in the context of a Supreme Court ruling interpreting state term limits to not apply to federal offices.  Given the change in the landscape, asking him to honor the promise is "unilateral disarmament" -- bad for his district due to lost relative seniority, bad for Michigan for the same reason, and bad for Republicans because it would give Democrats, who refuse to resign even in the dirtiest of scandals ($90K in cash bricks in the freezer), a relative advantage politically.  If NoviD wants federal term limits, I'm gung ho on his side.  Let's amend the Constitution.  ND is just being disingenuous on that though - no way would he disarm D-power, even in exchange for or on a level playing field.  On the other hand, nothing change for Schauer since he made the statement (except his perceived opportunity), however, as with Nick, it's a trivial attack and such political statements, if they are really lies, are the littlest ones among whoppers.  It's a distraction to the real issues of the day (just as Term Limit ballot questions are a distraction to real reform -- Term Limits are hardly the cause of our woes, and they hardly put a dent (though I believe they do dent) in one of the causes of our woes (special interests, on both sides), otherwise why would special interests want to lengthen them?  When the Chamber of Commerce and MEA agree on something, I get worried (and I like the Chamber, generally, but that confluence makes me think).


Chetly Zarko
Outside Lansing & Oakland Politics
Parent